All Comments (17)

Question about Life.
What inhale the Life in formulas and equations ?
What must be present in a body to make it alive ?
===== .========
My answer.
Soul. Quantum of Light / Electron.
Why Light Quanta /Electron?
1.
Because.
From all particles, only and only
the Quantum of light is a privileged particle.
Only Light quantum has
the speed of absolute quantity c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
2.
Because.
The physicists said: Light Quanta has dualistic behaviour.
I say : The dualism of Light Quanta connects with its ability
to be Electron. ( according to the “ Law of conservation and
transformation energy. “ and the " Lorentz transformations")
…………..................etc
3.
Because.
According a " big bang" our Universe exist 13 (+ ) billion years.
My question :
Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zigota] only in 280 days
according to Probability theory? If " yes "it will be take time not
280 days but will take time more than our Universe exist.
If " no " so the process must have aim.
It means somebody /something must manage this process.
So, which answer is really true?
My opinion :
It is impossible, according to Probability theory , only in 280 days
to create a physical body, who we named " child ", from billions
and billions different cells. It means the Probability theory
doesn’t work in cell theory, doesn’t work in biophysics.
It means the Probability theory doesn’t work in period of woman's
pregnancy. It means somebody /something must manage
the creating of child . The religion says : " it is soul".
I say: " The privileged particle Quantum of light / Electron must
manage this process. (According my interpretation SRT + QED) "
4.
Because.
Some people that survived from clinical death,
claim that they saw light, they saw their material body
and everything happening around as from the side,
that in this moment they were not a material body.
Who were they?
=========== . ========
Somebody wrote to me:
Israel,
I’m trying to understand what you are saying here.
Are you saying that there is a single electron (or photon?),
the spiritual particle, somewhere in each of our brains
that is an antenna-like receiver for divine transmissions?
And we can acquire new forces and abilities by listening to it?

I say: Yes, exactly so.
1.
Usually ITS action is almost completely disguised with the other forces
(mechanical, electromagnetic, nuclear, chemical ……etc),
therefore it remains unnoticed in an ordinary processes.
The situation is: hw kT.
The small energy of electron is higher
than common electric field of brain.
All of us have the personal God / Soul
and it is Light Quanta / Electron.
===========…
Where does the information come from?

Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – were assembled in a “single point”.
It means that all information also was assembled in a "single point".
And then there was " big bang " and all information flew to bits
in different sides.
Suppose , that every bits of a "single point", every particle
of a "single point" is the owner of some information.
Then there are two possibilities:
a) every particle has the own information and after 20 billions years
they accidentally united and created everything including a man.
The aim of it is to observe all accidental possibilities.
b) in the beginning every particle has zero information .
Question :" How does zero information further arrive to a
very high informational level ? "
========.
If you go on way a) - so maybe yes, maybe no
you will pass through a forest of knowledge .
If you go on way b) - you will pass a forest of
theoretical knowledge along a straight road.
========.
Why I say so?
The visible matter of world is only a small part of all mass in the Universe.
More then 90% of the matter in the Universe is unseen," dark matter ".
Nobody knows what it is and therefore it is possible to say that more
then 90% of information is hiding and unknown to us.
So our aim must be to study "dark particles " or…..
………..
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct : there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see at first, that electron does, it interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen. This is simplest design,
which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man.
Really, it is not beautiful, is it ?
Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles "
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
=======================
Was I mistaken? No.
Because according to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children!
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
========.
Why does only electron have quant of information?
Maybe does proton also have quant of information?
No. Single proton has no quant of information.
Why?
Because information can be transfered only by
electromagnetic fields. And we don’t have a theory
about protono-magnetic fields.
==========.
Once upon a time, in the beginning, there was
one "single point " accidentally.
Then it has accidentally blown up
Big Bang " has taken place.
It was the reason of accidental creation of some thousands
kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles.
Then atom of hydrogen was formed accidentally
Then complex atom was formed accidentally.
Then stars were formed accidentally.
Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally.
Then the fauna was formed accidentally.
Then the animal kingdom was formed accidentally.
Then the man was created accidentally.
And this man can accidentally think logically.
But of course, unfortunately, not always.
==============.
Many years ago man has accustomed some wild
animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.)
and has made them domestic ones.
But the man understands badly the four-footed friends.
In 1897 J. J. Thomson discovered new particle - electron.
Gradually man has accustomed electron to work for him.
But the man does not understand what an electron is.
==============
For my peasant logic at first it is better to understand
the closest thing (for example an electron) and then
to study the far away space and particles
(for example dark, black, virtual …etc particles).
============.
Best wishes.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net/

Mr. Norrie Hoyt: First, I should not jump to the conclusion that any first name that rhymes with Connie, Jeanie, Jackie, etc., is a female first name. I should have also noticed that, although the first name Norrie is exceptionally rare, it’s indeed a first name of a gentleman. I would like to apologize for my mistake—a mistake I could avoid if I followed every of your posts in the Washington Post. Second, I would like you to know that I have not jumped to any conclusion regarding your comment about the media. You said the “media’s failings are not limited to matters of religion and spirituality only, but about anything you were personally familiar with, you found the media’s coverage “at best, an obscured reflection of the truth, or, more often, misleading or completely wrong.” Since you had several decades of experiences as a government official and legislator, naturally you must be personally familiar with a lot of things. You were also talking about the exceptionally good reporters of Vermont; am I wrong to imply you were talking about all of the reporters nationally? Since you said the reporters were wrong about anything you were personally familiar with, and since you were familiar with a lot of things, can I assume that all the American reporters were wrong about everything they reported? And you didn’t specifically give a single case as example. And that puzzled me. I would also apologize for it, if you found it distasteful to you. It’s wasn’t my intention,
Respectfully,

Imsoti,

I was speaking of my state's exceptionally good reporters when they wrote about matters I knew of personally, or was involved in, over several decades as a government official and legislator.

They rarely got things completely right, particulary when departing from the facts themselves and trying to describe nuances, consequences, or the signifcance of events. Not infrequently they got the basics completely wrong.

I guess you missed my recent post where I went into the history/meaning of "Norrie." I won't repeat it except to note again that I'm a guy, not a gal.

If you were a journalist, I'd feel obliged to comment on your jumping to a conclusion in your reporting.

Best wishes.

"Unsubtle in its approach, it sees extremes as the same as moderate views, orthodox as parallel with liberals, eastern traditions as being polytheistic, and basically appears to have and demonstrate little understanding."

Yet all religions demonstrate little understanding for other religions, and frankly, as a person who sees little value in religion or religious lives, they all look the same:

All mythical, created by humans to control other humans.

BA'AL comments: I agree with you and would go so far as to say that if I was running a newspaper I would try as hard as I could to avoid hiring any reporters with journalism or communication degrees. For the science column, I would try to find someone with a background in science, etc. etc.

ANN O. replies: Yes, yes, yes. This is especially true of the large newspapers which can afford specialist reporters, as it were. My scientist relatives agree with you -- even the biggest papers manage to get the science wrong. . Some TV stations do manage to hire MDs and lawyers for medical and legal news. Would that they all hired competent stringers for the other complex disciplines like religion, science and the arts . In my opinion the are also covered dreadfully, except for the movies maybe. Some do try to get competent book reviewers, but if there's breaking news, forget it.

The media generally seem to have no idea of what "competence" means.

Imsoti,

You're certainly right to point out that the media need to explain what they have to say in the language of the common citizen. Absolutely. But they also have to understand what they're talking about, before they can try to explain it.

I don't think someone has to become an imam in order to write about Islam, or become a rabbi in order to write about Judaism. But the reporter does have to know enough about Islam or Judaism to be able to understand what is actually going on, when something happens in the world of Judaism or Islam. Only then can the reporter actually try to explain it to the rest of us.

When we turn to other subjects it becomes immediately obvious how important it is for reporters to be well-informed. Who would read the sports-section, if none of the people who wrote for it actually knew the rules of game, in the sports they were covering? What if someone wrote an article about Nancy Pelosi, but didn't know that she was a Democrat, or speaker of the House? Or what if someone writing for the celebrity section did a story on George Clooney, but didn't know that he'd been in any movies?

Best wishes,

Beren

BA'AL,

Thank you for the short form. I really do believe it summed it up nicely, just as I'm sure that most Christians in Kansas were burying their heads in frustration while the creationists were pretending that only creationists can be true Christians. Even a small faction has a spectrum of thought. People who report sound bytes or who think they're getting to the point by cutting all the nuances are doing the world a major disservice.

I am with Brent Rasmussen. The media doesn’t have to be an Imam to write about Islam. But the media speaks a language ordinary people, like me, can understand. I, however, don’t agree with Norrie Hoyt who said the media was often misleading or completely wrong about a political issue. For example, when the media reported in December 2005 that the Texas redistricting pushed by then Rep. Tom Delay helped the GOP gain a few more seats in the House, I believed it was a political maneuver. If Norrie Hoyt wanted me to believe otherwise, she had to explain to me in simple terms an ordinary citizen like me can understand, not in anything more subtle that only she and Rabbi Neuberger could understand.

Ann O

I agree with you and would go so far as to say that if I was running a newspaper I would try as hard as I could to avoid hiring any reporters with journalism or communication degrees. For the science column, I would try to find someone with a background in science, etc. etc.

BARONESS NEWBERGER: Media owners are not motivated by principles; they are motivated by market research. They give us what we want.

ANN O.: Indeed they are. I think the main problem with journalists is that they are not broadly educated. My brother and his friends were journalism majors in a very good journalism department. But I assure you that their general education was sadly very neglected. They were trained to be not just reporters editorial writers, but public relations men and advertisers!! "Communications majors" would have been a more apt term to describe them.

The journalist profession is aware of the problem, but I don't know what it's doing about it.

Garyd,

Actually, I think it's more just a question of asking a reporter to act like a good reporter. They have a responsibility to learn about what they write about, even though this involves work for them. As some people have noted, religion is not the only issue on which very shabby poorly-informed, and thus, misleading, reporting is done. Scientific developments are sometimes so simplified, in reporting, that the reports cease to be true. The same is certainly the case when the media cover historical discoveries. But on religion the reporting is often particularly bad.

An example: When Pope Benedict gave his controversial speech about Islam, the media managed to discuss all sorts of things that the Pope was not, in fact, talking about on that occasion, and ignored much of what he was discussing. A central claim of Benedict's (borrowed from a scholar of Islam) was that in Islam, God is so absolutely transcendent that he is not bound by reason or moral goodness. With this, Benedict attempted to contrast God as understood by Catholic Christianity, in which reason is part of the nature of God.

Now this is a very old debate, one which inevitably arises for monotheists who believe in a good god. (It's even touched on in Plato's dialogue, the Euthyphro.) A basic way of putting the question is: do things (like helping the poor, say) become good just because God commands us to do them, or does God command us to do them because they are good (or is there some third alternative)? For monotheists, this isn't a really obscure question. A journalist of religion should really be familiar with it, just as a journalist of economics should know what a flat tax is. But in fact, barely any of the coverage of the controversy surrounding Benedict's speech even mentioned this question.

And that's a pity, because it turned out that Benedict was partly wrong. It's true that one influential school of Islam (Ash'arism) holds the view that Benedict was referring to. But there are other schools of thought in Islam (Mu'tazilite, for example) that do not hold this view. An interesting article was waiting to be written. It never showed up in the mainstream US press. Perhaps editors thought that readers wouldn't be interested in so much philosophy/theology? But then, of course, they don't have to read it. I'm not interested in basketball so I don't read the stories about it, but I'm still glad it's there, for those who do.

A friend of mine is in journalism school right now, focusing on religion. When the controversy arose, her professor tried to use it as a teaching opportunity and they went and interviewed an Islamic scholar. But when my friend tried to ask the scholar about the Ash'arite and Mu'tazilite schools of thought, her professor cut her off, saying that they didn't have time to get into theology. Yet theology was at the heart of the controversy. Ignoring it was like ignoring changes in sea-level in an article on a global warming debate.

By now, one would think journalists _might_ have learnt their lesson. After all, what once would have seemed an equally obscure 'matter of theology' - the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam - is now in the news daily, thanks to its powerful political ramifications.

Best wishes,
Beren

Garyd, I suspect that you may have misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that most reporters are biased against religion. Even if most reporters were indeed atheists or agnostics, that wouldn't constitute a "bias." The same would be true of Christian reporters - one wouldn't automatically expect them to be biased against non-Christians or non-Christian religions, unless they wrote for a Christian advocacy publication.

My point was the nature of the news medium discourages subtlety and nuance, especially in TV news. The medium ends up casting most issues as conflicts, as "he said, she said." Debates in religion and science rely a LOT on subtlety and nuance, so those topics suffer greatly in the sound-bite format. This has the effect of harming both science and religion, but it doesn't constitute a bias against either one.

Tonio you are quite correct. Reporters tend to be like,everyone else shaped by their own internal biases, and perceptions. Given that seventy per cent or more of them are atheists or agnostics to expect them to have any real grasp of religion is like asking a crow to swim with ducks.

Shorter version of this essay:

Yes, those people handling snakes and speaking in tongues ARE weird, but the media do not understand that the rest of us are different.

While Neuberger is correct about the media's unsubtle approach, that is by no means limited to religion. Many reporters are "extremely bad at teasing out the details of difference" with science issues.

Baroness Neuberger,

Is it the media's responsibility to "tease out" the tangled, incomprehensible, incoherent, irrational details of yours or anyone's religion?

All religion is comprised of highly detailed rituals that only strong adherents to the faith would know the fullness of.

Why should the generic "media" be expected to know those things? Are they supposed to all become Rabbis before writing about Judaism? Priests before writing about Catholicism? Imams before writing about Islam? That would leave them very little time for writing, I would think.

Maybe the real reason why the media makes a poor showing in reflecting and explaining modern religious practice and belief is because modern religious practice and belief is *inexplicable*.

Rabbi Neuberger,

You're absolutely right, but the media's failings are not limited to matters of religion and spirituality.

I was actively involved in government and politics for several decades.

Every time I read or saw a report about a matter that I was personally familiar with, I observed that the report was, at best, an obscured reflection of the truth, or, more often, misleading or completely wrong.